“No!” says the other side, “they’re fascists, you see, because they’re thugs in black shirts.”

“No,” respond the other side, ”they’re anti-fascist – it’s right their in their name, Antifa – and only socialists can be antifascist.“

“You mean,” says the other side, “like the DPRK, i.e.,North Korea, must be democratic because it says so in their name?”

The funny thing is, both these sides are right in their analysis, just as both the sides in combat are wrong – as George Reisman so sagely points out. The key here, he explains, is that:

Socialism comes in two leading variants: the German or Nazi variant and the Russian or Bolshevik variant. In the Nazi variant, the appearance of private ownership exists but all the actual powers of ownership are exercised by the government. In Charlottesville, both the protestors and the anti-protestors included numerous socialists, German or Russian style respectively. To that extent, the two sides were equivalent in their human-life-hating immorality. Among the protestors in Charlottesville, were many who sympathised with the Confederacy either in spite of or because of its slavery. But even sympathy for Confederate slavery pales in comparison with advocating slavery for today, for everyone, as does socialism.*

NOTE:

* Reisman: “Socialism is an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production; … a system of slavery, established by armed robbery and maintained by totalitarian dictatorship and mass murder. Mass murders under socialism, including government caused famines (in millions): Mainland China: 76; Soviet Union: 62; Nazi Germany: 21 …. [Source: R. J. Rummel, Death By Government. New Brunswick, N.J., Transaction Publishers, 1994. For proof of the nature of socialism, see pp 282-94 of my book CAPITALISM, available on Amazon.]

13 comments:

I find it more and more useful to boil this down to identity versus individualism.

Freedom advocates are individualists, and treat everyone on their merit as a unique individual (hence, per one of your earlier blogs, individualism makes racism, sexism, et all impossible).

Both an antifa like a alt-right white supremacists are that most evil creature which views everything in terms of identity to the extinguishment of being able to treat people as individual human beings. People are either loved, or more usually, hated, merely on skin colour or gender. That's why identity has always, in its final iteration, able to commit genocide - the wiping out of individuals en masse based on something as superficial as a group they are identified with.

Personally I'd be fine with removal of all public monuments. The idea of the government spending public treasure to honor individuals is definitely against the proper purpose of government! If private groups wish to erect statues, monuments, or whatever, that's perfectly fine; it reflects nothing but their views, and is their property.

The only sticking point I can see is the military. Obviously as an organization it makes sense that they'd want to honor certain members. As public institution, however, it becomes tricky. I think that as long as those statues, memorials, or whatever remain on military property it would be no different from statues or memorials on anyone else's property.

are you serious? You want to see all public monuments, worldwide, which were built by governments or rulers which don't fit your definition of acceptability, removed? (removed by another coercive government or ruler, no less :)

I've seen in previous discussions your sense of reality is determined by what you can quickly google, and the basis on which you make our assertions. If you'd gone a bit further though, you'd have realised that Nazi was the German abbreviation for National Socialist. That by itself doesn't prove anything (as the DPRK examples shows), but if you read what the Nazi's actually wrote, you'll find much of it indistinguishable from what modern socialists advocate today. It was socialism with a nationalist/racist/militarist rather than the internationalist/pacifist flavour, but socialism nonetheless.

When the intellectual mainstream of our era is predominantly socialist, they will of course want to distance themselves from the Nazis, so I wouldn't be surprised if your search engine shows few "reputable" historians pointing out the parallels (or even acknowledging tht Nazi was short for National Socialism) - but if truth is really your goal, you should read what the Nazis advocated on the domestic front and decide for yourself.

Ben, They called themselves socialist, spoke out forcefully against capitalism, and acted to enforce centralized control over the economy.

Admittedly, in of of themselves any one of the above isn't definitive, but taken as a whole it's pretty clear cut.

At what point do you call it socialism? If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and publicly declares itself to be not just a duck, but the most pure blooded duck in the world, perhaps we should just take it on it's word?

Also, communism is a form of socialism, but not the only version. I can be socialist and be anti communist, the same way I can be Christian and anti Catholic.

Lastly: Many, if not most countries today does have a socialist regime by definition, and would proudly proclaim it. Most of Europe are proudly socialist, even John Key declared that Kiwi's have a "Socialist Streak". Only the Yanks and the Aussies won't cop to it.

Roedolf - You have the internet, you went to school, and yet you're arguing as if you'd never heard of fascism except on this blog. There's a difference between fascist and socialist authoritarian regimes (and it's not that fascism is a form of socialism). It isn't complicated.

And no, most countries today are not socialist whether they proclaim it or not. Libertarians themselves argue this, for example, when the success of Scandinavian countries is brought up.

Mark - Roedolf's argument is odd but yours is missing a chromosome. You think there's a conspiracy by Google & the "intellectual mainstream" to hide/deny Nazi leftist socialism? Jesus wept.

1. Commenters are welcome and invited. 2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.